MINUTES Eleventh Meeting of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

MINUTES
Eleventh Meeting of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
John G. Shedd Aquarium
Phelps Auditorium
1200 South Lake Shore Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60605
September 24-25, 2002
Commissioners in Attendance
Honorable James D. Watkins, (Admiral, USN (Ret.)) - Chair
Dr. Robert D. Ballard
Mr. Ted A. Beattie
Mrs. Lillian Borrone
Dr. James M. Coleman
Ms. Ann D'Amato
Mr. Lawrence Dickerson
Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, USN
Professor Marc J. Hershman
Mr. Paul L. Kelly
Mr. Christopher Koch
Dr. Frank Muller-Karger
Mr. Edward B. Rasmuson
Dr. Andrew A. Rosenberg
Honorable William D. Ruckelshaus
Dr. Paul A. Sandifer
Meeting Attendees
A list of meeting attendees, including affiliation where provided, is included in Appendix 1.
1
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
Welcome
The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and announced the release of the midterm
report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The Chair introduced Ms. Marcia Jimenez,
Commissioner of the Department of the Environment, representing The Honorable Richard M.
Daley, Mayor of Chicago and Mr. Donald Vonnahme, Director of the Office of Water
Resources/Department of Natural Resources of Illinois. Ms. Jimenez and Mr. Vonnahme
provided welcoming remarks.
Ms. Jimenez discussed the benefits of the Great Lakes to the region and the importance of a
long-term plan for protecting this resource. She stated that Mayor Daley has worked on these
issues with the understanding that the ecology and economics cannot be separated. Ms. Jimenez
stressed the need to test for water quality to protect public health and safety. She stated that the
federal government must work with the state to collect public health data and that it is a federal
responsibility to ensure that local governments have the resources necessary. Ms. Jimenez
stressed that federal policy must seek to protect the Great Lakes and that ultimately, protecting
the Great Lakes means evaluating human decisions. She commented that invasive species are a
critical issue and have devastating effects on commerce, recreation and the economy and
therefore urged the Commission to consider polices to protect waters from invasive species. Ms.
Jimenez noted that requirements must apply to all ships, both domestic and international. She
also commented that conservation is an ethic that must be addressed and that there is a need for
mayors to be involved in these issues and to have an input on national policies. Ms. Jimenez
discussed a meeting that Mayor Daley convened in May of mayors representing cities on the
southern end of Lake Michigan, from Milwaukee WI to Gary IN. She noted that this fall they
will reconvene a meeting of some of those same mayors as well as mayors from some other
larger cities throughout the Great Lakes. She concluded that federal policy must support and
work in concert with the goals of protecting and conserving the Great Lakes.
Following Ms. Jimenez’s presentation, she commented on a number of issues raised by the
Commission. The Commission expressed interest in the way that the mayors in the Great Lakes
have come together to address common issues. It was noted that the Commission is looking at
how to be responsive to regional needs and asked Ms. Jimenez to further discuss the Great Lakes
Protection and Restoration Strategy that the mayors are developing. Ms. Jimenez responded that
the Strategy would identify the projects, programs and policies they believe are necessary to
protect, conserve and manage the resources of the Great Lakes. This plan would identify the
capacities and resources that local and state governments bring to the table and then will identify
how they can coordinate with the federal government to realize these goals. She added that this
plan will be completed in the early part of November and then the mayors will meet in January.
Commissioners asked Ms. Jimenez to expand on what has taken place at the earlier meetings
between the mayors, the level of cooperation from the mayors and what the Commission can do
to support that effort. In response, Ms. Jimenez commented that Mayor Daley realized early on
how important it is to work with other mayors in the Great Lakes region. She noted that they are
looking at key issues in the Great Lakes such as preventing beach closures. She added that water
quality and beaches are economic drivers in the region. She also expressed concern with the
discharge of sewage into the Great Lakes. Ms. Jimenez stated that they are looking at the
2
infrastructure to ensure that it is sufficient for stormwater drainage. She noted that Chicago is
involved with continual upgrades and repair of the infrastructure to ensure they do not have raw
sewage leaking into lakes and rivers. She stressed the need for additional federal support. She
also noted that what happens in Milwaukee, WI will affect Chicago and what happens in
Chicago will affect Gary, IN. She concluded that they formed this coalition of mayors in the
Great Lakes to find better ways to protect the Great Lakes.
Ms. Jimenez expressed concern with invasive species and that the federal government has a role
in preventing the introduction of invasive species through the ballast water of ships entering U.S.
ports, particularly freshwater ports such as the Great Lakes. She was asked whether the Great
Lakes mayors have made any recommendations on this. Ms. Jimenez responded that developing
a recommendation to study the discharge of invasive species into the Great Lakes will be a
priority at the meeting the mayors are having. She added that this needs to be addressed both at a
national and international level and they need a body with enforcement and inspectors.
Commissioners commented that Ms. Jimenez indicated a desire for more federal support for
sewage systems and asked her what funding would be required. She commented that stormwater
management would be a high priority but they would need a study of what systems exist around
the Great Lakes Basin before they came up with a dollar value. She said that there should be
more federal support to replace the infrastructure that affects the Great Lakes.
In response to a question about the need for a regional coordinating body, Ms. Jimenez
commented that the Great Lakes Charter allows for governors to have a voice on Great Lakes
issues but that there is no avenue for municipalities that have to deal with day-to-day problems to
have an input. She commended the governors for their work thus far on Annex 2001 to the Great
Lakes Charter. She expressed that the original charter needs to be modified to allow for local
involvement at every level of decision making that concerns the Great Lakes and noted that
mayors and municipalities should have an equal vote. Ms. Jimenez added that the Great Lakes
Governors Council has done a good job but she would like municipalities to be added to the
table.
Mr. Donald Vonnahme commented that only through cooperation can the Great Lakes ecosystem
be preserved and protected. He noted that they support the Commission’s elements document,
which lists ten elements to lead toward a robust national ocean policy. Mr. Vonnahme
commented that the governors are doing a similar exercise to set priorities for the Great Lakes.
He added that they have committed to a Comprehensive Great Lakes Restoration Plan to ensure
that restoration activities are undertaken and that will also allow for economic growth of the
region. Their plan has both short-term and long-term objectives and they plan to present their
short-term goals to the public this fall. Mr. Vonnahme discussed the ten guiding principles that
they believe are important. These included: 1) maximize reinvestment in existing core urban
areas, namely transportation and infrastructure networks; 2) minimize the conversion of green
space and the loss of critical habitat areas and open spaces; 3) limit any net increase in the
loading of pollutants or the transfer of pollution loading from one medium to another; 4) protect
and restore the natural hydrology of the watershed; 5) restore the physical habitat and chemical
water quality to protect and restore diverse and thriving plant and animal communities; 6)
encourage the inclusion of all economic and environmental factors into cost-benefit analysis; 7)
3
avoid development decisions that shift benefits and burdens; 8) encourage all new development
and redevelopment initiatives to protect and preserve access to historical, cultural and scenic
resources; 9) promote public access to natural resources; and 10) encourage the development and
sharing of useful research information. Mr. Vonnahme recommended that the Commission give
priority to the issue of invasive species because this is a serious problem in the Great Lakes
today. He also commented that there is a growing concern over beach closures and that this
problem has become more acute over the past three years. He noted that this problem may be
reflective of changes of the Great Lakes ecosystem that they do not understand, and that requires
expertise from the federal government.
Following his presentation, Mr. Vonnahme addressed follow-up questions asked by the
Commission. Admiral Watkins noted that the National Governors Association is meeting in
February and asked Mr. Vonnahme if he thought it would be useful to them to have the
Commission speak before them at their meeting. Mr. Vonnahme replied that it would be a good
vehicle and would be useful.
Commissioners asked Mr. Vonnahme how much the Comprehensive Great Lakes Restoration
Plan will cost. He responded that they think it will probably exceed the cost of the Florida
Everglades project but they have not estimated a dollar value yet. Commissioners noted that Mr.
Vonnahme discussed tasking federal agencies for a research agenda and asked him to expand on
this. He stated that a committee task force of the Great Lakes region has been meeting to see
where the voids are and where the money is and that they will provide that to the Commission. It
was noted that the Commission has been given dollar values from various panelists around the
country and that priorities have to be made. Mr. Vonnahme was asked to give guidance for
trying to set those priorities. He responded that this effort is being undertaken by the governors
in the Great Lakes region. He added that of the eight states in this region, some governors put
the economic concerns ahead of the environmental concerns and others put the environment
ahead of the economy. Mr. Vonnahme stated that they do not yet have a set of priorities. He
noted that in his testimony he discussed the ten short-term goals but they are still looking at
priorities and that they realize it is capital intensive. The Commission asked Mr. Vonnahme to
provide the Commission with information on their outreach and educational programs pertaining
to water quality.
The question was asked about the need for a regional coordinating body, how it would have
authority and if that authority would be listened to. Mr. Vonnahme commented that the Council
of Governors is looking at the proper level of government and that this issue is being debated.
He noted that even among the eight states in the Great Lakes region, there is disagreement about
the level of government for a regional body and whether municipalities should have a vote. He
commented that he thinks the preference of the other states and provinces would be to not let the
voting level go below the state or provincial level.
Commissioners asked, in terms of water quality or quantity, if they can attribute effects to global
change. Mr. Vonnahme responded that the current chief of the water survey has done some work
on this and they have looked at long-term trends. He stated that they are getting predictions that
it is going to get dryer and that it is going to get wetter. They have not been able to draw any
conclusions.
4
Mr. Vonnahme was asked to explain the relationship between the various groups he discussed
such as the Mayors Task Force and Council of Governors. He was also asked why he did not
address the Great Lakes Commission or the International Joint Commission and why with these
groups there is still a need for a separate governors or mayors group. He commented that he did
not mention these other organizations because he was trying to keep his testimony within the
time limit. He noted that they have tremendous connections with the Great Lakes Commission
and International Joint Commission. He added that as far as having the primary responsibility,
the governors feel they have this and they see themselves as being on the cutting edge. He noted
that they utilize the Great Lakes Commission because they have a knowledgeable staff and have
much expertise. The Great Lakes Commission provides research, ideas and studies but
implementation is done through the governors. Mr. Vonnahme noted that the International Joint
Commission brings Canada and the U.S. together and when they develop recommendations,
sometimes they are embraced by the states and provinces and sometimes they are not. He
concluded that the governors see themselves in the forefront and that it is their primary
responsibility.
Commissioners expressed interest in the priority that Mr. Vonnahme gave to limiting net
increase in the loading of pollutants or the transfer of pollution loading from one medium to
another. It was noted that only a small part of Illinois contributes pollutants to the Great Lakes
Basin and the majority of the state contributes pollutants to the Mississippi River Basin. Mr.
Vonnahme was asked if the infrastructure exists to determine if there is a net increase or decrease
in loading of pollutants. Mr. Vonnahme deferred to Mr. Toby Frevert, with the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency to address the question. Mr. Frevert stated that the majority of
state does drain into the Mississippi River Basin. He noted that they could always use more help
in monitoring pollutant loading. He commented that the pollutant loads going into the Great
Lakes Basin were not as bad because they have successfully restricted the flow from developed
areas. He added that in some neighboring states they could use a significant amount of
assistance in monitoring.
Commissioners commented that they have heard much testimony regarding air pollution and the
impact of air pollutants from the Midwest on the East Coast. Mr. Vonnahme was asked if he had
any comments on views the governors have on this issue. In response, he commented that about
two years ago there was interest from the natural gas industry who wanted to create gas-fired
electrical generated plants. He said there was a large interest in this but that interest faded with
the slow-down in the economy. He also added that they have a lot of coal in southern part of the
state. He stated that they have three federal reservoirs they work with and now there has been
enough interest in using coal instead of natural gas to power these facilities. However, he noted
that they have high sulfur coal so it will be more difficult to clean up.
The Honorable James Connaughton – Chairman, White House Council on Environmental
Quality
Following his presentations, Mr. James Connaughton commented on a number of issues raised
by the Commission. Admiral Watkins discussed that at the Rio Convention, oceans did not get
noticed and he is pleased that oceans were brought up on the agenda at the World Summit on
5
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg. He expressed that it was helpful for the Commission
to get an update on what happened in Johannesburg from Mr. Connaughton. Admiral Watkins
asked how receptive the Administration will be to the Commission’s report. Mr. Connaughton
responded that at the federal level, they are very interested to hear the Commission’s thinking on
horizontal integration, which could include outright changes or coordination. Mr. Connaughton
offered the salmon recovery issue as an example of coordination. Salmon recovery has involved
an effective regional body that has a corresponding group at the national level that provides
direction. He added that there is a conservatism in government and once things are in place
people often do not want to change the structure, so the Commission must take that into account
in making realistic recommendations. He expressed that he is more and more in favor of the idea
of regional entities. Mr. Connaughton also noted that if people are given specific, feasible
performance outcomes, they tend to meet those goals. Mr. Connaughton stated that more ways
should be found to offer incentives and increase motivation. He provided the example of Coastal
America, which has restored massive amounts of wetlands by getting federal and state agencies
together with the private sector by picking projects and working together. He discussed a dam
removal project in Maine in which no one had the resources to take the dam down. To solve this
problem, Coastal America found a reserve unit in Texas that needed to perform a training
exercise and brought them to Maine, blew up the dam, and restored the wetland. This fulfilled a
defense readiness need and restored the environment. Mr. Connaughton concluded that the
Commission should focus on making recommendations that are challenging but realistic.
In response to a question about whether the U.S. would ratify the Law of the Sea, Mr.
Connaughton stated that the Administration has made ratification a priority, that the ratification
documents were provided to the Senate, and he was hopeful that with the new Senate, the Law of
the Sea will get ratified. He added that the U.S. is largely implementing the Law of the Sea even
though it has not yet been ratified by the Senate.
Commissioners noted that Mr. Connaughton discussed the Farm Bill and conservation. He was
asked if there is flexibility in the Farm Bill to allow farmers to switch to different crops instead
of using more fertilizer than might be needed. Mr. Connaughton responded that there is a new
commitment to conservation and that they expect that to reinvigorate the watershed management
discussions because the watershed management planners will have new priorities for setting
goals to link together plans and resources among groups. He expressed that getting farmers and
ranchers to talk together has an economic value.
It was stated that Mr. Connaughton expressed that at the World Summit in Johannesburg he had
hoped that there would have been other things accomplished, and he was asked to discuss what
those things were. He responded that he had hoped that there would have been more
partnerships developed. He added that the U.S., during the planning process, introduced and
promoted the idea of high-level partnerships among countries. He commented that he was
disappointed that they did not have ten times as many of those partnerships in Johannesburg. He
discussed that the U.S. worked with eight countries in central Africa to create things such as
forest preservation and national parks. He commented that this was the first partnership of that
scale of magnitude and it had real money that would help those economies grow in a more
sustainable way. Mr. Connaughton commented that from a forward-looking perspective, they
are done with the text and have the plan for implementation. They were able to demonstrate that
6
these high-level partnerships can be created. He concluded that now the only conversation left is
about action.
Commissioners asked Mr. Connaughton for his thoughts on trying to coordinate various agencies
and U.S. representation for the World Summit in Johannesburg. He was asked if there are
changes that he would like to see occur. He commented that the United States’ natural resource
agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (F&WS) are not
responsible for the environmental outcome. He added that as the U.S. moves forward at the
international level, there is a need to improve the accountability of the entities that own the
projects that produce the environmental benefits. Mr. Connaughton stated that it is the finance,
trade and development, and economic ministers who are going to be spending the money. He
added that the environmental ministers should be providing the expertise but the economic
ministers should be responsible. Mr. Connaughton gave an example of the need to get the
commercial fishing industry together again. He commented that perhaps there needs to be
regional economic councils rather than regional fisheries councils since they are accountable for
the performance.
It was noted that Mr. Connaughton mentioned, in his testimony, that there is a call for
strengthening science and capacity in marine science and he was asked to offer a deeper
understanding of the administration’s position. He responded that this is something that Admiral
Lautenbacher focused on at the World Summit in Johannesburg. He stated that access and
coordination of information systems is a high priority and that Admiral Lautenbacher is focusing
on this. Mr. Connaughton commented that they are focusing on global ocean observing systems
and how to construct that infrastructure, encourage other countries to recognize the need for this,
and get them involved. He added that the excitement level has been reinvigorated.
Commissioners asked Mr. Connaughton to provide more specific information in writing.
Commissioners commented that they are struggling with the best way to come up with a
governance structure – whether it would be best to consolidate or coordinate. Mr. Connaughton
was asked if there are any principles that should go into the development of models for
coordination. He responded that top management commitment is needed and then key
deliverables. He added that commitment to follow-up by the players involved is required. Mr.
Connaughton commented that the Commission has the choice of creating a stand-alone body to
implement. He offered some examples where the issue was too complex to create a stand-alone
body. Both energy and climate are too complex to create a single body so they had to identify
players that own the outcome. He added that this needs to be made a high-level priority and then
the federal government should break the outcome into tasks and assign those tasks to state and
local governments. Mr. Connaughton also suggested that each group only be assigned about two
tasks so that people knew what they were doing and it was achievable. He added that everyone’s
role has to be defined and then there will be peer pressure for everyone to do their part. He
stressed the need for shared responsibility over an outcome and to make the plans operational.
Commissioners thanked Mr. Connaughton for bringing an international perspective to the
meeting. It was noted that a high percent of the population lives in coastal areas and yet with
climate change, high percentages of those coastal ecosystems will be lost. It was asked if there
7
was discussion and plans looking 20, 50 or more years ahead to look at climate. Mr.
Connaughton responded that these areas today are at risk and have been because man has settled
and been productive a little too close to the shore. He stated that regardless of climate change,
the action that is going to make a difference is combined land and water management. He added
that the U.S. has learned a lot about flood plain management and yet there are still people living
in flood plains. Very few places on the edge last longer than 50 years. Mr. Connaughton
suggested that the U.S. needs to be smarter about the broader societal objectives and let more
dynamic elements play out in the way intended by nature. He added that this is a philosophy
around which everyone can act.
It was noted that Mr. Connaughton made reference to the U.S. leadership position
internationally. He was asked what key issues the Commission should make sure are part of the
report to assure that position. Mr. Connaughton responded that the key issues are capacity and
education. He added that especially with the international focus, we have the luxury in America
to do better and we have an ethic of doing better. In much of the rest of the world, they will not
implement things the U.S. has because it is expensive, complicated and requires a free and open
political environment. He commented that the tools we set for ourselves to achieve the outcomes
are important and we should take education and capacity to achieve our objectives. Mr.
Connaughton added that the U.S. should take successes from around the country and export the
solutions. He commented that the evolution of farmers’ productivity is stunning to look at and
the remarkable capacity of farmers and the agriculture industry to adapt as they are taught to do
better things. He added that the U.S. has to understand and develop approaches that are
responsive to some of the cultural differences and barriers.
Natural Resources
Mr. William F. Hartwig – Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department
of the Interior
Mr. Cameron Davis – Executive Director, Lake Michigan Federation
Mr. Marc Gaden – Communications Officer, Great Lakes Fishery Commission
Dr. Thomas C. Johnson – Director, Large Lakes Observatory, University of Minnesota– Duluth
Once the panelists had provided their formal statements, they addressed specific issues raised by
the Commission. Commissioners asked the panelists to address the issue of salmon being
introduced to the Great Lakes and if these fish are reproducing naturally. Mr. Hartwig responded
that lake trout is the species of interest. Lake trout should be the top predator and has been
replaced in some parts of the lake with salmon, which is a great sport fishery but is not native to
the region. Mr. Hartwig added that often the impact is unknown when the environment is altered
and it is never certain what the outcome will be. He stated that sportfishers would like to see
salmon stay there, but others want to restore the lakes to their natural conditions. Mr. Hartwig
added that there is also an enormous potential problem if Asian carp invade the Great Lakes.
Four fish species, known as Asian carp, pose an immediate threat to invade and expand within
the Great Lakes through the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal, which connects the Great Lakes
and Mississippi River watersheds. Commissioners asked Mr. Hartwig if salmon are reproducing
naturally in the Great Lakes. He responded that Pacific salmon are reproducing in many areas of
the Great Lakes. Mr. Gaden commented that they are trying to restore native species like lake
8
trout and are also trying to stock fish in the lake. The introduced species are not native so they
have to rehabilitate the fish that are native.
It was noted that Mr. Hartwig recommended a mandatory ballast water management program for
all ships entering the U.S. ports and the Great Lakes, so that risk of species invasion via ballast
water is greatly reduced. Commissioners asked him to give more detail regarding this
recommendation. Mr. Hartwig commented that he is supporting what has been recommended by
other boards and commissions. He added that the Great Lakes already contain too many invasive
species. Mr. Hartwig suggested what is required is to stop both purposeful and accidental
introduction of non-native species, but more species will invade the Great Lakes via ballast water
unless mandatory management programs are implemented. Once species have invaded, they
must be controlled, and control costs are much greater than the costs of prevention. He noted
that he hopes that can be done to prevent Asian carp and other species from invading the Great
Lakes via all vectors. Mr. Hartwig suggested that more education and outreach is needed to
either slow or stop the human-assisted spread of invasive species. Public outreach and education
have slowed the accidental spread of zebra mussels from the Great Lakes and Mississippi River
to nearby waters, and have helped prevent the spread of zebra mussels west of the 100th Meridian
(which is an interagency goal). He stressed that education of sportsman, boaters, and others are
vitally important to preventing the spread of most invasive species.
Commissioners expressed interest in Mr. Hartwig’s recommendation that barriers to passage of
native fish and other aquatic organisms should be either eliminated or modified to allow passage
of those organisms to their historic habitats. He was asked if he has a specific programmatic
initiative or if he was simply saying that ways to remove dams that block fish passage need to be
found. Mr. Hartwig responded that he did not have a specific process recommendation but that
he would offer some comments. He commented that most of the cases he has been involved with
have been driven from the ground up. The Service works with local and state governments on
fish passage projects. He added that there have been some projects that have been done at the
local and state level and then they have had problems when they reached the federal level. Mr.
Hartwig commented that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has often slowed
things down. He suggested that there be more local control and influence rather than having to
go through something at the federal level that often takes five or ten years.
The question was raised about whether there is a governing structure present to address the
Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal issue and find an alternative to the existing electric barrier
before the existing barrier fails. Mr. Hartwig responded that this is currently a local issue, but if
it is not solved locally, it will be a regional, national, and international issue as well. He added in
jest that Mayor Daley is part of the problem because he has done such a great job cleaning up the
Chicago Canal so that fish now can survive and reproduce in portions of the canal that formerly
could not support reproducing populations. Because it is presently a local issue, Mayor Daley
has the opportunity to find a solution. The Service is willing to help the City of Chicago. The
Canal was originally constructed to solve water quality issues. Mr. Hartwig commented that
there is not a mechanism today to solve this particular issue and they do not have a board of
governors with expertise to solve this problem. Mr. Hartwig expressed that the barrier
technology presently employed is unlikely to be totally effective at preventing the exchange of
invasive species between the Great Lakes and Mississippi River Basins. He stressed that we
9
need to design a state-of-the-science barrier, install that barrier quickly, evaluate the barrier, and
adapt it as needed to prevent the interbasin exchange of invasive species.
Commissioners noted that they have heard from over 350 testifiers and at least 250 have used the
words habitat, ecosystem and biodiversity imprecisely. Mr. Davis was asked if he could give an
example of a biodiversity goal and how it is measured. He responded that a starting point would
be the ability to provide a setting for indigenous species to reproduce in a viable way over time.
He commented that sustaining biodiversity health is often a question of scale because restoring
one acre of a wetland may not be enough for biodiversity sustainability but restoring a larger part
of a wetland may. Mr. Davis commented that rehabilitating urban aquatic habitat is important
because some of our best opportunities for bolstering viable populations of native species may be
in reclaiming urban habitats. The Lake Michigan Federation has launched an Urban Aquatic
Habitat Initiative as an experiment, with successes to be measured.
It was noted that the Lake Michigan Federation is involved with education and communication,
which are issues that are important to the Commission. Mr. Davis was asked for
recommendations, and responded that there are some lessons in what has been done and what
needs to be done. He commented that ecological problems are becoming more complex. Mr.
Davis expressed that it is important to communicate issues in ways that connect or appeal to the
individual. He noted that most people in the region know what zebra mussels are but do not
know how this invasive species will affect them. However, if the individual understood that
their water bills would go up as zebra mussels clog pipes, it would have more meaning to them.
Mr. Davis added that fewer people are reading the newspapers and instead relate to other media
like magazines. He suggested that the Commission should recognize that and use these new
types of media.
Commissioners commented on Mr. Davis’ recommendation for bringing fish and wildlife habitat
back into cities. He was asked if they are looking to the federal government for the majority of
the funding for this. In response, Mr. Davis commented that federal funding sources exist but
that they also will rely on funding from foundations. There are ten new foundations, though
small, emerging in Michigan every month, many of which are dedicated to restoration of the
natural world. He commented that building the costs of maintaining healthy ecosystems needs to
be built into our economic systems so that actions that degrade coasts are not in effect subsidized
is important from a governance standpoint. Commissioners commented that many foundations
are experiencing declines in their ability to support efforts because of declining investment
portfolios. Mr. Davis added that while bigger grants are becoming more difficult to obtain, the
Federation is successfully stitching together smaller funding sources to achieve the same result.
For example, instead of getting one $60,000 grant, the Federation is combining two $15,000
grants and one $30,000 grant for planning to bring habitat back to the Chicago lakefront.
It was noted that the Great Lakes Fishery Commission has a strong consensus process. Mr.
Gaden was asked how things are moved forward if consensus cannot be reached and the process
is dragging out. He answered that there is a provision for dispute resolution to bring an issue to a
third party. He provided an example where there were disputes about a management issue in
Lake Erie and Ontario. When they asked to solve this issue through dispute resolution, the
federal government told them to try to reach a compromise. Mr. Gaden commented that they did
10
reach a consensus due to the fear of the federal government stepping in. He commented that
perhaps the fear of the federal government drives it or perhaps chaos does. He added that peer
pressure also helps create consensus because biologists have to explain why their agency does
not agree with other agencies.
Commissioners asked Mr. Gaden about why they rely on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to
provide data they use in making their management decisions regarding fisheries considering this
is a geological rather than a biological agency. Mr. Gaden explained that they rely on
information provided by USGS because the research that was done was traditionally done by
F&WS until it became the biological division of USGS. He added that they just changed logos
but it is the same group of people. Mr. Gaden stated that it is critical data that fishery managers
need in making decisions, but over time there has been erosion in the efforts of USGS to deliver
the science. Commissioners asked Mr. Gaden to provide specific recommendations regarding
this in writing.
Commissioners expressed interest in Dr. Johnson’s comments regarding the lack of funding and
infrastructure and observing system capabilities in the Great Lakes. In his testimony, Dr.
Johnson stated that the participants from the NSF-funded workshop on the Science of Freshwater
Inland Seas advocate the establishment of a separate budget of $10M per year in the Geosciences
Directorate at NSF for large lakes research. In response to a question about whether this number
included the cost for a new research vessel, Dr. Johnson explained that the figure does not
include the cost for added infrastructure such as a new research vessel.
Admiral Watkins commented that the Commission has heard a lot about the need for good
science. He asked Dr. Johnson to provide the Commission in writing with a breakdown of what
would be addressed with the $10M per year budget and why they picked these as priority issues.
Dr. Johnson commented that the Science of Freshwater Inland Seas workshop, which was held in
July 2002, will be coming out with a final report that will be completed by the end of the year.
The report will not be available until late January 2003. Dr. Johnson submitted a breakdown of
the $10M budget by e-mail attachment to the Commission, dated 2 November 2002. This report
will outline how they feel on the order of $10M per year. He commented that this is
complimentary to the research and management activities in federal laboratories in the Gt. Lakes
region and that there is a role for the academic research community to play in the mix of this.
Their report is strictly about NSF funding. Most of their funding is from NSF but they also get
some funding from Sea Grant, USGS and EPA. Funding from NSF is for basic research whereas
funding from Sea Grant, USGS and EPA is for priority research based on specific research
questions.
Non-point Source Pollution
Mr. Robert H. Wayland III – Director, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Ms. Sarah Chasis – Water and Coasts Program Director, Natural Resources Defense Council
Mr. Roy P. Bardole – Farmer, Rippey, Iowa
Dr. Dan Walker – Senior Program Officer, Ocean Studies Board, National Academies
Dr. Dennis R. Keeney – Senior Fellow, Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy
11
Following their formal presentations, panelists addressed questions raised by the Commission.
Panelists were asked to list what they thought were the three major pollutants for the
Commission to address in dealing with nonpoint source pollution issues. Mr. Robert H.
Wayland III listed pathogens, sediment, nutrients and invasive species; Ms. Sarah Chasis listed
nutrients, toxics and pathogens; Mr. Roy Bardole listed soil, nitrate and phosphorus; Dr. Dan
Walker listed nitrate, phosphorus and mercury; and Dr. Dennis R. Keeney listed nitrate,
phosphorus and mercury.
It was discussed that the Commission conducted a site visit in the Chesapeake Bay region and
met with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. It was noted that the Chesapeake Bay Foundation
stated that from a scale of 1 to 100, they are at a 27 in terms of getting better. They are having
problems with nutrients coming from the west, sewers dumping waste into the Chesapeake Bay
and nonpoint source pollution coming from farms. Commissioners noted that this appears to be
a daunting problem because cities do not have money to clean up their sewer systems and 97%
of the land in the Chesapeake is owned by individuals. Commissioners commented that it seems
that the easiest of the three is to improve the sewer systems in the U.S. Commissioners asked the
panelists for recommendations.
Mr. Wayland commented that it has taken a long time to get where they are and will take a
sustained effort and getting the general public to understand the three key problems the
Chesapeake Bay faces. However, there already are a variety of groups in the Chesapeake Bay
that are trying to get the public to understand these things, such as the Chesapeake Bay Program.
He commented that he thinks some of the environmental education efforts are beginning to pay
dividends and those efforts need to be continued. Mr. Wayland noted that most of the areas of
the Chesapeake Bay are served by upgraded sewage plants and that aspect is being addressed.
He added that improvements need to be made with respect to nonpoint source pollution and there
needs to be a better mechanism to target agriculture for conservation. Ms. Chasis commented
that public understanding of these issues is fairly recent and the Commission’s report will
contribute to increasing public understanding. She commented that these issues could be
addressed without creating whole new programs. Ms. Chasis added that it is going to take time.
Dr. Walker commented that humans have been loading the landscapes for decades and these
nutrients are incorporated into the landscapes. Many of the aquifers in the Midwest have
elevated nitrate levels and they will continue to leak nitrate for some time. Dr. Walker stated
that one of the frustrations is that they reduce fertilizer levels but the concentration in the rivers
does not go down. He commented that they may not be targeting the right sources or waiting
long enough to see change. He added that he cannot overemphasize the importance that what
works in one watershed is not going to necessarily work somewhere else. Dr. Walker echoed
Ms. Chasis’ comment that it is going to take some time.
Commissioners commented that Mr. Wayland concluded that technology exists but motivation is
lacking, but stated that they did not get a sense from his testimony where the Commission should
go to fix this. Mr. Wayland commented that he is operating under some constraints but that he
agrees with many of the recommendations that Ms. Chasis made. He noted that it was
interesting to hear Mr. Connaughton talk about the coordinated effort of Coastal America. He
commented that he found it valuable to collaborate and develop joint programs because people
want to get the job done and realize that their own authorities and capabilities are insufficient.
12
He added that additional resources would, for the most part, overcome the other problems. Mr.
Wayland expressed that it is not necessarily a structural problem as much as an issue of fostering
partnerships and rewarding them. He commented that he wished that in addition to a stick they
gave more carrots; there are not many incentives, and this might be a valuable addition. Ms.
Chasis added that currently, the penalty is to withhold funds so their recommendations are to
look at some other things. Mr. Bardole commented that Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) should be funded adequately. Part of what is being discussed by their new chief is
trying to decide how to implement the conservation title of a new Farm Bill. Mr. Bardole
commented that part of that would include paying farmers and he thinks funding is in the wrong
place. Dr. Keeney echoed that funding is a little misdirected in the Farm Bill and that needs to
be looked at. Admiral Watkins asked Dr. Keeney to provide more information on this to the
Commission.
Commissioners commented that Mr. Wayland used the number 40,000 for TMDLs and asked
him what this number represented. He explained that there are 40,000 TMDLs that need to be
done. Mr. Wayland was also asked what is being measured in a TMDL, how it is being
measured and who pays for that measurement. He responded that state water quality agencies
are responsible for much of this work because they list water bodies and determine pollutants.
He commented that TMDLs do not have to be developed for water bodies that are impaired from
things other than pollutants. They require states to provide a methodology prior to when they
submit a listing of their waters to know how they interpreted their standards. Mr. Wayland noted
that state agencies and the federal government, through grants provided by EPA, are the ones
who pay. He added that it is a significant challenge to make this affordable and that they have
increased grants over the years. They also do extensive cost-analysis in the TMDL process.
It was noted that TMDLs have been described as the best game in town since it is the only game
in town and that TMDLs are about as effective as the single species management plans for
fisheries. Commissioners asked about what EPA is doing within its research division and how
much of a priority is being placed on finding a better method. Mr. Wayland responded that it is
an area that is getting increased attention. He expressed that the consulting community is putting
a great deal of energy into creating new models. Mr. Wayland also stated that they want states to
implement their programs such that they look at all of the stressors within a watershed. Mr.
Wayland was asked to provide the Commission with a priority for where this falls within EPA’s
research agenda.
Commissioners commented that a number of the panelists pointed out that they need more
money or that the money is in the wrong place. The question was raised that it may be a
structural problem rather than a lack of money. Commissioners noted that Ms. Chasis did a good
job of laying out some specific proposals but all of those proposals were for the improvement of
current agencies. She was asked to indicate whether some structural changes are needed since
she described mostly programmatic and statutory changes. Ms. Chasis responded that there is a
need for a stronger ocean agency in the federal government, which would help in addressing
some of these issues and increase public visibility. She expressed that there needs to be not only
more coordination but also a stronger agency that can be an advocate for the oceans in the U.S.
She commented that politically it is a tall order and she is not sure if she would rather see that
13
structural change than some of the other changes she recommended. Mr. Bardole added that
government agencies have to talk to each other as well as among themselves.
It was noted that Dr. Keeney made a comment that to successfully develop working landscapes
requires a strong partnership which would include landowners. Commissioners also noted that
they have heard from EPA that for the Clean Water Act nonpoint source program, community
level involvement can be an important tool for engaging support. The question was asked about
what the Commission can recommend to involve the landowner. Mr. Bardole responded that the
Commission must deal with the problem and its source. He commented that problems must be
dealt with on a small watershed basis and the leaders in that watershed must be involved. He
added that those leaders and the watershed group can apply pressure to get landowners to come
on board as part of the solution. Mr. Bardole stated that the solution has to come at the small
watershed level with a carrot; government programs must cease to punish the good guy and
instead should reward the good guy and punish the bad guy. Mr. Bardole stressed that currently,
farm programs pay the person who has been doing the wrong thing.
Commissioners expressed interest in the recommendations Ms. Chasis made for Best
Management Practices (BMPs). Mr. Bardole was asked about whether he thought these
recommendations are realistic. He responded that he strongly supports planting winter cover
crops, which greatly reduces the leaching of nitrate. Mr. Bardole commented that wetland
restoration is very important and he would support returning marginal farmland to wetlands. He
noted that wetlands are a sore subject because if it were not for field tile, there would be
wetlands all over, and wetlands are the best processor of nitrate. Mr. Bardole stated that
wetlands need to be placed where they will do the most good. He also agreed with the
recommendation for increased vegetative buffers to intercept tile drainage from farm fields. He
commented that he agrees with reducing the nitrate input from farms, but they do not yet have an
understanding of the agronomic rates, so that is the only recommendation he has an issue with.
Dr. Keeney and Mr. Bardole were asked if there is a trade-off in terms of output of nitrate for
incentivizing the growing of corn for energy. Dr. Keeney responded that there is a trade-off and
that thinking should go beyond using corn for ethanol. He added that there are markets for green
energy, and there could be markets for green ethanol as well. He suggested that ways to grown
corn without the release of more nitrate should be looked into. Mr. Bardole commented that he
is a firm believer in economics and he does not believe corn is the most efficient way to make
ethanol. He added that what is driving corn to more acres is not ethanol, it is the farm program
and since they grow more corn, they have to do something with it.
Admiral Watkins commented that the Ocean Studies Board of the National Academy has
produced a number of reports, some of which are very broad. He noted that there is no receptor
for those reports and that the Commission is currently undergoing a study to review a number of
National Academy reports to look at what has been done regarding their recommendations.
Admiral Watkins asked Dr. Walker what he suggests the Commission do to implement the
policies that the National Academy has recommended. Dr. Walker responded that by their
nature they are independent of the process but they have done a lot with educating Congress on
these issues. He added that many of their studies are now jointly funded. Dr. Walker
commented that they are seeing the same problems over and over again and they are addressing
14
them because it is difficult for agencies to coordinate and implement actions even when they
agree on what should be done.
Dr. Walker was asked to provide the Commission with more information in writing regarding
long-term monitoring and how it might be linked with other observing systems to get one data
system.
Commissioners commented that the biggest surprise with the National Academy report, “Oil and
the Sea” was the large percent of oil that comes from nonpoint sources such as recreational
boating, marinas, 2-stroke engines and aviation fuel dumps. Dr. Walker commented that the two
earlier “Oil and the Sea” studies identified nonpoint source pollution as a source and in terms of
other sources, they tried to be more comprehensive in the third study. He added that new designs
are already on the market for engines and industry is responding to the recognition that they need
to reduce those effluents. Dr. Walker commented that they have to recognize the huge
uncertainty, which goes back to the need for monitoring. He noted that they have to understand
where to target their efforts. He added that sharing of data that is collected is important. Dr.
Keeney commented that there are global problems, which require local solutions. He added that
EPA does a good job in their field offices but they do not have the agriculture mandate. He
recommended getting people out of their offices and out on the land. Mr. Wayland commented
that he is very proud of EPA’s role and participation in wetland restoration in Louisiana. He
added that the ACOE, NOAA, EPA and the state of Louisiana are all participating in this
process. Mr. Wayland stated that he believes that coordination mechanisms at the watershed
scale are producing remarkable results and there should be more examples of them.
In response to a question about how much priority and effort, in terms of money, the Department
of Agriculture and the research community is investing in BMPs, Mr. Keeney stated that not
enough is being done and that priorities are toward improving production.
Governance
Dr. Frank L. Kudrna – Member, Board of Directors, Great Lakes Commission
Mr. James Chandler – International Joint Commission
Dr. William Eichbaum – Vice President, Endangered Species, World Wildlife Fund
Mr. Jeff Gray – Manager, Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary and Underwater Preserve
Following their presentations, the panelists answered questions on a number of issues raised by
the Commission. Commissioners expressed interest in Dr. Kudrna’s recommendation that
consideration be given to the structure provided in the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 as
it related to the formation of a national system of (multi-state) river basin commissions and a
federal U.S. Water Resources Council. Dr. Kudrna was asked if the Commission should look at
this as a potential model and if he could elaborate on the lessons the Commission could take
from that model in approaching watershed or ecosystem-based management. He responded that
the concept is good in that it has a clear charge for states and the federal government. However,
he expressed that there are problems with this model because it was dominated by federal
partners.
15
Mr. Chandler was asked if, under the Boundary Waters Treaty, there is enough monitoring and
data acquisition to pinpoint sites of major pollution. He was also asked, if there has been, what
are the regulatory authorities or enforcement powers of the International Joint Commission. Mr.
Chandler responded that they do not have any regulatory authority or enforcement power
because the International Joint Commission is advisory. He commented that some points of
pollution are well known but there are so many of those sites that it is beyond the stage of
pointing fingers. The problem is it is extremely expensive and except in a few areas in the U.S.
where certain Members of Congress have had a lot of influence, it is hard to make progress.
Commissioners asked Mr. Chandler whether Canada would want to be part of a monitoring
system that the U.S. created. He responded that he thought they would want their own separate
monitoring system rather than just being part of ours.
Commissioners asked Dr. Eichbaum about the report “Striking the Balance,” particularly with
respect to regional councils. It was noted that the report makes a suggestion for ad hoc regional
councils but that in his testimony, Dr. Eichbaum did not recommend ad hoc councils. He was
asked to comment on this, the size of regional councils and who the representatives on the
council would be. Dr. Eichbaum responded that the view of the committee was that initially
councils should be ad hoc and temporary in the sense that they would operate as long as it takes
to address a problem or set of problems and they need not address the marine environment of the
entire U.S. He added that it could be from a downwards process triggered upon determination
that a national interest was not being met. He stated that they looked at several case studies. In
one case study, they looked at fisheries in New England. He commented that if someone had
been able to intervene in a reasonable way, they might have ended up with different results with
respect to fisheries in New England. Dr. Eichbaum addressed the question of who should be on
the council by saying that it should be a political process and that members of council probably
need to have political leadership. He gave the example of the management structure in the
Chesapeake Bay where there are political leaders but immediately under them are a science
board and a public board that are involved. He commented that this is how unwieldiness at the
council level would be avoided.
Commissioners asked Dr. Eichbaum about his comment that when local government cannot
come together, the federal government has to address the issue. He responded that a national
council should set priorities in a limited number of areas. They should define critical national
interests in the marine environment. He commented that there is a need to have a regional and
local response. Only in the case of failure would the federal government monitor progress of the
regional and local levels in order to ensure that the regional council carries out their objectives.
Commissioners expressed that the regional fish councils in Alaska work well and asked Dr.
Eichbaum to be more specific about the question regarding the recommendation of “Striking the
Balance” to set up ad hoc councils. Dr. Eichbaum responded that the current role of the fishery
management councils could be modified where fishery management has been ineffective. He
gave an example of wind generation of energy where that requires removing areas that are
available for fishing. He commented that solving these conflicts could be a role for this type of
council. The council could address improving habitat and dealing with habitat issues that would
produce more resources.
16
Dr. Eichbaum was asked to elaborate on his use of the term refugia. He responded that that term
means a no-take-zone or “parks of the sea.” He commented that this term differs from an MPA
because there are MPAs that do not exclude all uses. There are many uses that go on in some
sanctuaries. He commented on the Dry Tortugas, which is a 180 square mile area that was
supported by commercial and sport fishermen because of the benefits to fishing outside of the
refugia. Dr. Eichbaum stated that the Dry Tortugas would not have worked if it were not for an
overall plan for the sanctuary and working with all the stakeholders. He added that now at
World Wildlife Fund, they are taking fishermen from that process to see if it would make sense
to create refugia in other areas.
The question was raised about when it is better to create a council than to clarify within the
government which agencies are responsible for particular jobs. Dr. Eichbaum was asked what
guidance World Wildlife Fund had on this issue and what criteria they used to determine whether
a regional council should be used. He was also asked what powers a regional council should
have. He used the wind-energy issue as an example. He commented that it is conceivable that a
national marine council could decide that the issue of generating energy from wind is an
important national objective but the issues that are inherent in location (biological, economic,
aesthetic, and conflicts with other uses) are more appropriate to deal with at the regional level.
There should be a regional council dealing with these regional issues. He added that if the
federal government decided it does not care about these conflicts, it would be a local issue and
decisions should be made at the local level.
Commissioners asked Dr. Eichbaum if there are any coherent principles that would be applied to
this structure regardless of the situation. He replied that the structure should be used when: 1)
there is a critical national interest that is not being addressed due to inadequacy or indecision at
the regional/local level or 2) a local interest could be elevated to a national level issue. Dr.
Eichbaum discussed estuary programs such as the Chesapeake Bay estuary program which began
as a local issue and then was elevated to a national level issue through the National Estuary
Program.
Admiral Watkins commented that the Commission is looking at issues such as nonpoint source
pollution, fisheries, coastal zone management and water quality. He stated that the Commission
is being encouraged to take on the issue of ecosystem-based management. Admiral Watkins
commented that when a marine council is set up on a national level, there needs to be regional
ecosystem management as well. He asked Dr. Eichbaum if that exists today where all those
groups get together to deal with these issues. Dr. Eichbaum responded that this is fairly effective
in the National Estuary Program. He commented that he believes there is an important and
growing role to organize government around eco-regional concepts. He added that he is equally
persuaded that a system of governing a marine environment should not try to reach into the
structures of government that manage terrestrial ecosystems. He commented that this would be
too cumbersome and would attempt to integrate separate things. Dr. Eichbaum stated that there
is a line that should be drawn at the shoreline. Commissioners raised questions regarding this
since the Commission is looking at coastal zone management and the need for a watershed plan
that looks at land impacts on water. Dr. Eichbaum was asked to comment on those linkages. He
responded that the committee was primarily focused on improved government and less
concerned with maximizing effectiveness of the land side to protect the marine environment.
17
They did not view that as within their charge but he commented that it is probably within the
Commission’s charge. He commented that if he was recommending a governance plan, he
would look at the marine environment and then look at how to build linkages between the
terrestrial system and the marine environment.
Commissioners commented that Dr. Eichbaum mentioned stopping at the coast but that maybe
this Commission should not. It was noted that one issue that the Commission will need to look
at is anadromous fish, which would require managing habitat in coastal and inshore areas. He
was asked what kind of structure would be ideal for dealing with these issues. Dr. Eichbaum
answered that when there is a discrete issue and certain players need to be brought together,
management could go across sea and land but for a general system the committee thought that
would be too broad. Commissioners commented that millions of dollars have been spent on
salmon recovery and there is very little coordination for habitat restoration because there is no
one to pull them together and doing that spontaneously is asking a lot.
Interest was expressed in Mr. Gray’s presentation because this was the first formal presentation
on underwater archeology that the Commission has had. Mr. Gray was asked to provide, in
writing, specific recommendations that the Commission should consider for underwater cultural
resources.
Commission Business
Approval of Minutes of June 13-14, 2002 Meeting
Commissioners approved the minutes of the June 13-14, 2002 Meeting without changes. The
minutes will then be subject to review by the panelists at those meetings who will be given an
opportunity to recommend edits. Once finalized, the minutes will be posted on the Commission
web site.
Report of Working Group Chairs
Research Education and Marine Operations:
Dr. James Coleman reported that by the October meeting the Research Education and Marine
Operations Working Group will have draft recommendations completed. He discussed what
they accomplished at their working group meeting in Chicago. They reviewed the CORE
education survey, which gave them a good view of where they stand with regard to educational
facilities. They also reviewed a white paper on education by Sharon Walker. They made a few
recommendations to her on the white paper which she will incorporate. Dr. Coleman also
commented that they discussed the need to translate research into educational programs. They
also discussed the facilities assessment, marine commerce and transportation. Dr. Coleman also
stated that they sent a letter under Admiral Watkin’s signature to the state governors requesting
information about facilities at the state level. At the federal level, they made requests to federal
agencies regarding facilities. In the area of research, they discussed several models and research
needs. He commented that they need to look at stewardship areas and see what the Stewardship
Working Group defines. They also discussed the role of federal research and will ask for a white
paper on this topic from staff. They are also pursuing a white paper on ocean health. Dr.
18
Coleman commented that they discussed ocean observing systems and that they have conflicting
views on the proper role and where it should be housed. He added that they defined the purpose
of the system and that it has to be based on the needs of the region and they will look at the
National Weather Service model. Last, the Research Education and Marine Operations Working
Group looked at exploration and agreed that it is an integral component of science, has large
appeal to the public and is valuable for education.
Stewardship:
Dr. Paul Sandifer announced that the Stewardship Working Group meeting in Chicago focused
on water quality, pollution and monitoring issues with two scientific experts. He added that
today they have heard a lot of testimony on nonpoint source pollution. They focused on
nonpoint source pollution issues at the working group meeting and tried to determine what
direction their recommendations will be going. Dr. Sandifer added that they discussed a draft for
a mechanism to deal with living marine resources issues. They also discussed work that needs to
be done and timelines. In addition, the Stewardship Working Group addressed definitions of
terms such as ecosystem management, the precautionary approach and biodiversity. They also
discussed the need for additional information on informal education. Mr. Ted Beattie and Dr.
Robert Ballard will be working with Dr. Michael Orbach from the Commission’s Science
Advisory Panel on the topic of informal education. Admiral Watkins noted that the living
marine resources section of the midterm report takes up a significant number of pages and asked
Dr. Sandifer how they are dealing with all this. Dr. Sandifer commented that the volume reflects
the importance of living marine resources to the public. He added that they are trying to deal
with the largest issues and are stressing the utilization of science and management and regional
programs that are consistent but allow as much local decision-making as possible.
Governance:
Mr. William Ruckelshaus reported that the Governance Working Group has developed responses
to coastal zone management issues that they have been charged with looking at along with
nonliving marine resources. He commented that they are looking at the potential
recommendation for a coordinating body. They looked at how a coordinating body might assist
them with solving these issues and principles to guide the governance recommendations they
might make. He added that they have not come to any conclusions about what those principles
might be. The Governance Working Group also looked at substantive issues including sediment,
nonpoint source pollution, land use planning, hazards and habitat restoration. They looked at
how these issues would fit with a coordinating body.
The meeting adjourned for the day at 6:00 p.m.
19
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2002
Welcome
The Chair called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. and introduced the members of the first panel.
Invasive Species
Ms. Lori Williams – Executive Director, National Invasive Species Council
Dr. James T. Carlton – Director, Williams College-Mystic Seaport – Marine bioinvasions:
Vectors, invasion pulse, and strategies
Mr. Richard Harkins – Vice President of Operations, Lake Carriers’ Association
Dr. Jeffrey M. Reutter – Director, Ohio Sea Grant College Program and Stone Laboratory–
Invasive species: Their impact and our response
Following formal statements, Admiral Watkins remarked on the need to examine investment
strategies for managing invasive species. He asked the panelists if invasive species management
plans have been costed out. He assumed that these plans have research components and
requested the panelists submit estimates of the costs of high priority research components. He
also requested that the panelists submit to the Commission their views on current invasive
species legislation.
The Commission noted that there are differences in how the introduction of invasive species is
addressed that are similar to the different ways point and nonpoint source pollution are
addressed. It was indicated that the control of ballast water exchange from ships seems to be
occurring more successfully than the introduction of invasive species by other means, such as by
sushi restaurants and aquarium dumping. In the second case, a massive public education
campaign may be needed; however there is currently no federal support for this kind of initiative.
The Commission also recognized the need for monitoring and rapid response strategies. The
panelists were asked if any strategies were being looked at to address these issues.
Dr. Carlton noted a grassroots effort as an example of a strategy to address invasive species that
would not have been thought up by state government. His example involved a Pew Oceans
Commission report on introduced species that described several ways in which nonnative species
are introduced in coastal waters. One of the methods of introduction described in the report
involved the introduction of invertebrates that live in the seaweed used to pack and send crabs
from the East Coast for use as bait on the West Coast. After reading the report, he stated, a
dealer inserted a label into every package of seaweed that warned the recipient against discarding
the seaweed into San Francisco Bay. Dr. Carlton remarked that invasive species introduced by
different vectors require different strategies. He noted that there has been much discussion on
developing ways to rank or weigh the significance of the different kinds of vectors. The key
question, he stated, is how to measure the strength and the pulse of the vectors and also which
species are likely to travel in each of these vectors.
The Commission asked the panelists at what point an invasive species become native. Dr.
Carlton responded that humans have dissolved all barriers of time and space in the introduction
of nonnative species. Many of these species, he stated, would never have arrived at these
20
locations naturally. He remarked that humans have radically altered the process of natural
migration. The transition from nonnative to native transcends human generation time. He
remarked that 100 to 200 years does not an indigenous species make. He commented on the
sliding baseline syndrome and noted that humans tend to reset their perception of what is natural
from one generation to the next at zero.
The Commission stated that education is a very important issue and complimented the panelists
for making it a priority in their testimony. In follow-up testimony, it was asked that the panelists
be as specific as possible on the role of education in addressing invasive species. The panelists
were asked whether there are examples of current, effective education initiatives. Dr. Carlton
responded that the New England Aquarium in Boston displays information on invasive species,
as does the Bishop Museum in Honolulu. Also, there have been exhibits and programs scattered
throughout the country on this issue. He stated that a national coordinated effort and a uniform
outreach approach would be welcome. The Commission added the Lake Erie project described
by Dr. Reutter as another example of a successful initiative and asked if there were models to
look at from that effort.
The Commission asked about the science used for invasive species risk assessment. Dr. Carlton
responded that there are people employed as risk assessment professionals. He noted, however,
that risk assessment works best when vectors are known. The challenge is with species that have
no prior history of being invasive, because in their native location, they are not noxious.
Therefore, when an apparently benign species is on a vector, the challenge is knowing how the
species will respond to its new environment. The problem is compounded by the fact that more
than one species may travel on the same vector at the same time.
Dr. Reutter remarked that there is not enough risk assessment work being done. He noted the
case of the introduction of the zebra mussel as an example. It has become clear through DNA
sequencing that the mussels were introduced multiple times from multiple locations. As a result
of DNA technology, there is now a better sense of where the species are coming from, i.e. we
know the locations of many of the high-risk ports or where introductions often originate. He
commented that there is also a need to look at the ballast compartments of ships. Because these
compartments cannot be cleaned completely, they continue to have the potential to introduce
invasive species. He noted that it was initially thought that the environment within the ballast
compartments would be a lot less hospitable to nonnative species than what they are currently
finding, An important questions now is to determine what other species are poised to invade and
from where, and use that information to prioritize prevention efforts.
Dr. Reutter remarked that the National Sea Grant College Program focuses tremendous efforts on
outreach initiatives. He noted, however, that the total budget for these types of educational
efforts is not enough. Dr. Carlton echoed Dr. Reutter’s comments and noted that Sea Grant is
given only about $2 million to fund entire national efforts. This, he stated, presents a huge
challenge. Admiral Watkins stated that the Commission needs to be aware of situations like the
one faced by Sea Grant. He noted the insufficiency of Sea Grant’s current funding to provide
nationwide education on important issues. He requested additional data and trends to support
these findings. He remarked that it needed to be pointed out why the influx of invasive species
in areas like the San Francisco Bay is so bad. The Commission, he stated, would be better able
21
to help this situation if a strong case was made. The Commission echoed Admiral Watkins
statements and strongly encouraged the panelists to provide more details on the problem of
invasive species. It was requested that the panelists describe more thoroughly why research and
education are important.
The Commission reiterated the need to examine investment requirements of a strong invasive
species education and prevention program. It was noted that the Commission supports the
efforts of the National Sea Grant College Program, but that they are concerned that the program
is not experiencing a lot of growth. What would be helpful for the Commission is a statement by
the panelists of what a strengthened program would do for the nation. Dr. Reutter remarked that
he would respond to part of this request now and part in a follow-up statement. He referred to
the current $62 million in federal funding for the national program as “decimal dust.” He
remarked that the program is a wonderful model that works through partnerships to address
almost every coastal issue and that the program focuses on human health, the economy, and the
environment through research, education and outreach.
In response to a Commission request for a model of a successful education initiative, Dr. Reutter
referred to a recently submitted proposal that addresses education on aquatic nuisance species for
a mass audience. An example of a strategy included in the report involves setting up informative
signs in areas where visitors to zoos and aquariums stand in line. He referred to the term
“edutainment” which means educating people in an entertaining fashion. The Commission
requested a copy of his proposal.
Ms. Williams remarked that the problem with nonnative species is not just that they are from
somewhere else. She recommended that focus be put on the harm caused by introduced species
on human health, the economy, and the environment. She went on to note two objectives of the
National Invasive Species Council, of which she is executive director. One objective is for a
public education campaign. The other is for the coordination of current efforts to control
invasive species. She remarked that the federal government has not been successful on these two
points.
The Commission asked Ms. Williams whether any broad sensitivity analysis has been done in
regards to where restricted resources should be allocated to address invasive species. It was
asked whether there has been any analysis done on the biggest fouling risks. Ms. Williams noted
that it was difficult to rank pathways and that there is a lot of uncertainty. Ballast water, she
stated, has come up first on the list and it has therefore been given a lot of attention. She
remarked that an attempt has been made to form a federal cross-budget initiative that includes an
attempt to coordinate and identify high priority federal programs and expenditures. She also
stated that the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force has identified priority research areas. She
noted, however, that they are still talking about a very small investment in this problem.
The Commission commented that there have been several proposals for a coordinating council
for ocean governance. It was also noted that, in the area of invasive species, such a council
exists—the National Invasive Species Council. The Council is co-chaired by three federal
agencies, was established by an Executive Order, and has a non-federal advisory council. It was
asked whether the Council is a good model and whether there are structural problems in dealing
22
with the issue of invasive species that have had to be overcome by the Council. Ms. Williams
stated that the Council has been in existence for two years and that they are still learning. She
acknowledged that a mechanism for federal coordination is essential, but it is not the only thing.
She stated that the Council is mandated to coordinate with the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task
Force and not to replicate their work. She stated that through the work of the Council and the
Task Force, the necessity of regional panels has become apparent. She noted that there needs to
be some kind of regional look at the system. One of the features of the Council is that it involves
the participation of the heads of several key departments and agencies. She recommended the
NSTA as another good model.
In regards to ballast water control, the Commission asked Mr. Harkins about the establishment of
standards recommended in his testimony. It was asked whether he believed mandatory standards
would have more of an effect than voluntary measures. Mr. Harkins noted that the proposed
changes to the National Invasive Species Act prescribe mandatory ballast water exchange
standards. He noted that this provision represents the only mechanism available today to
adequately control this form of nonnative species introduction.
The Commission remarked on the challenging problem of a lack of standards for ballast water
exchange technology. It was noted that the International Maritime Organization struggles with
this issue as do other groups. Mr. Harkins was asked whether these types of organizations may
play a potential role in working on the technology problem. Mr. Harkins responded that there is
not a lot of research being done on ballast water exchange technology and that the research that
is taking place is not coordinated. He noted that Lloyd’s Register is involved, but that the
American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) is not. The role of ABS, he stated, is vessel safety, which
is challenging to join with ballast water exchange planning. However, ABS and other class
societies will have a big interest in the results of the research. He also expressed the need for
insurers to become involved.
The Commission remarked that mid-ocean ballast water exchange will most likely become
mandatory. It was noted that if the IMO does not endorse such standards, they will be developed
and implemented by the U.S. Coast Guard. Mr. Harkins stated that two sets of standards were
created two years ago which have to do with the size and type of species transported in ballast
water. Since that time, no additional standards have been developed. He commented that the
IMO would not act as quickly as the U.S. in setting these types of standards.
The Commission asked whether or not there were examples of how other countries have
effectively managed invasive species to look to as models. Mr. Harkins responded that different
countries have different regulations for ballast water exchange. The NISA bill, he stated,
contains specific required management practices. He remarked that he does not know of any
other country that has anything better at this point and that he anticipates that the amended NISA
will address this quite well.
The Commission requested additional statistics from the panelists beyond what was provided in
the written testimony and that specific mention is given to the rapidity at which the introduction
of nonnative species is taking place. It was also asked that the panelists address the introduction
23
of Atlantic salmon in the Pacific Northwest and whether this event was intentional or
inadvertent.
Admiral Watkins concluded the session by asking that the panelists provide the Commission
with more details on current management plans, the new NISA bill, current and planned
education initiatives, and investment needs.
Education
Dr. Eric Lindstrom – Director, Ocean.US—NASA’s success in engaging the public on Earth
and space science education
Dr. Wendell Mohling – Associate Executive Director for Professional Programs, National
Science Teachers Association—Where are we going in science education?
Dr. Bruce Carr – Director of Education, American Zoo and Aquarium Association – America’s
aquariums: roles, capacities, and partnerships for ocean education
Dr. Paul Boyle – Acting Director, New York Aquarium and Director, Osborne Laboratories of
Marine Science
Following their formal statements, the Commission remarked that it has been a challenge to
determine how to inspire responsible behavior among members of the public. Dr. Lindstrom’s
point was noted by the Commission—that NASA’s efforts at outreach and education were fueled
by Neil Armstrong’s walk on the moon and the nation’s overall zeal for adventure at that time.
Dr. Lindstrom was asked whether he thought that NASA had acted to propagate the nation’s
excitement for space science with investment in education and outreach activities. More
specifically, Dr. Lindstrom was asked to provide an estimate of the percentage of NASA’s
budget dedicated to education and outreach so that a comparison could be made with similar
efforts on the part of the ocean science community.
Dr. Lindstrom indicated that a large number of NASA projects have budgets that specifically
identify money to be used for education purposes. He noted as an example the TOPEX/Poseidon
program, which has the largest education and outreach budget for a satellite program in NASA
history. The program, he stated, has created a large response from a cross-section of society
interested in the program’s data products. The Commission remarked that, in the case of most
other agencies, programs specific to education and outreach in the agency’s budget would be the
first programs cut. It was stressed by the Commission that the ocean community have the
capability to make improvements in investment for education across agencies. Dr. Lindstrom
noted the importance of education and outreach in moving from research to application. He
stated it should be stressed that education not be thought of in isolation from other program
components.
Dr. Lindstrom was asked if the public excitement generated by NASA for science and
engineering was planned or just something that happened. Dr. Lindstrom responded that he did
not believe it was planned. Rather, the public found role models within the space program and
became interested in the scientists’ background and expertise.
24
Dr. Lindstrom remarked that the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP) is headed
in the right direction in terms of its sponsorship and coordination of education and outreach
efforts. He remarked that NOPP has reached out to many organizations in support of these
kinds of programs. In his experience with NOPP, Dr. Lindstrom told the Commission that the
need for national standards to be established for outreach initiatives became apparent. He noted
the need for a public visions to be expressed in the process of program development with the
help of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA).
Dr. Mohling responded that the NTSA agrees with this idea and that standards are meant to give
visions and guidance—not a rigid curriculum. Dr. Mohling was asked if the NSTA was involved
in national-level collaborative work with other agencies besides NASA. He responded that the
NSTA is involved with several, but not all agencies. He noted that several groups associated
with NSTA have also been very involved with many agencies.
Dr. Mohling remarked that the NSTA sees value in dedicating part of an agency’s budget for
education purposes. He indicated that NASA has aligned many of its programs with national
teaching standards, and in so doing, assisted NSTA efforts in providing enhanced strategies for
teaching math, science, and other subjects. He stated that he would like to see similar budget
allocations for education programs be made in other agencies.
Dr. Boyle noted that it would be valuable if a mechanism were put in place that allowed
education components to be included early on in program development. Having people
experienced in outreach and education involved from the onset, he noted, would allow lessons
and strategies learned from previous efforts to be applied to future efforts. Admiral Watkins
agreed that education should be a key part of program development. There are tremendous
educational opportunities associated with ocean programs, he said, but the ocean community is
fractionated unlike NASA. He stated that educators need to be brought into the process at the
beginning and that the NSTA could help with this goal.
Dr. Boyle remarked on the success of the informal education movement that took place in the
1980s. Before that, he stated, education in aquariums was relegated to words on walls. Now, it
is apparent that people have the ability to learn more effectively in settings like aquariums and
museums than they do in classrooms. He commented that he has witnessed first hand the ability
of people to “connect the dots” between what they learn in an aquarium and how it relates to
what is going on in the outside world.
Dr. Boyle commented that there should be more research on how and what aquarium visitors are
learning. The Commission noted a NSF-funded study to measure the educational impact of AZA
institutions in Dr. Carr’s written testimony. The Commission remarked that it is important to
know what it is aquarium visitors are learning and for how long they remember the lessons
learned.
The point was made by the Commission that there is a disconnect between the aquarium world
and the oceanographic world. It was noted that most of the science information presented at
aquariums is biological in nature. The chemistry, geology, and physics of the ocean are not
equally represented; whereas, these disciplines are included in museum exhibits and programs.
25
The Commission asked if there was any effort being made by the American Zoo and Aquarium
Association to incorporate these disciplines in aquariums, or if there was any effort being made
to encourage visitors to pursue advanced knowledge of the ocean sciences. Dr. Carr responded
that the Commission’s assessment of the difference between museums and aquariums is an
accurate one. Aquariums focus on living organisms and come from a tradition that is more
entertainment-oriented than education-oriented. Happily, educational professionalism and
commitment at aquariums have superceded entertainment as the primary role and service. The
primary strength of zoos and aquariums begins with the appeal of innately fascinating living
marine organisms. Aquariums can certainly be effective by building upon that innate fascination
to attract the visitor’s interest in other sciences. The Commission expressed interest in
continuing to link all ocean science disciplines—including open ocean and deep sea research and
exploration—to museum and aquarium programs.
Dr. Carr was asked to comment on the training and education of people who work in zoos and
aquariums. He responded that, several years ago, there were two types of people who worked at
aquariums: trained teachers who came to participate in programs and keepers who spent a lot of
time talking with the visitors about the animals. Now, he stated, there is not a uniform picture.
The employees typically have bachelor and graduate degrees in a wide range of disciplines.
Efforts are also being made to develop a graduate program to train future aquarium
professionals. Dr. Mohling added that currently there are good collaborations between
aquariums and school districts. He commented that continued partnerships with teachers would
result in more efficient and focused delivery of science education funding.
The panelists were asked to respond to the following three questions in follow-up testimony.
First, they were asked to provide their thoughts on who should be involved in coordinating a
message on the importance and significance of the ocean. Second, the panelists were asked for
their views on how to reach aquarium visitors with a message of personal responsibility. For
example, could issues like non-point source pollution be addressed in exhibits and programs?
Third, they asked how aquariums could get across a more multi-disciplinary message to its
visitors.
Climate Prediction
Dr. Raymond P. Motha – Chief Meteorologist, World Agriculture Outlook Board, U.S.
Department of Agriculture—Application of weather and climate for agriculture
Dr. Ronald McPherson – Executive Director, American Meteorological Society—Prediction as
a mechanism for coping with climate variability and change
Dr. Lisa M. Goddard – Associate Research Scientist, International Research Institute for
Climate Research, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Council/Columbia University—Climate
prediction capabilities
Dr. Terrence M. Joyce – Senior Scientist Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution – Abrupt
climate change and the oceans
Following their formal statements, Admiral Watkins remarked that the Commission is very
interested in the topic of climate change—as evidenced in the mid-term report. He noted that at
the public meeting of the Commission in Alaska, the Commissioners heard testimony from
26
panelists on Arctic research. Furthermore, Admiral Watkins expressed that, although it seems as
if the Arctic is especially important to climate change research, little is heard about the region.
In response, Dr. Joyce noted that as the Russian threat in the Arctic subsided, so did a lot of the
science that was going on there. He also noted that the changes in the Arctic have the potential
to shut down global ocean circulation.
Admiral Watkins then expressed puzzlement as to why the Department of Agriculture is not
more involved in ocean observation and research. For example, he remarked that the Secretary
of Agriculture is not a member of the National Ocean Research Leadership Council. He asked
Dr. Motha to comment on how more enthusiasm could be generated at the Department,
considering the potential benefit of their participation to ocean prediction modeling. Dr. Motha
responded by acknowledging that the Department of Agriculture has acted conservatively in this
regard. Specifically, the Department does not use climate forecasts when making commodity
predictions. He did indicate, though, that there has become more acknowledgement of the ocean,
land, atmosphere continuum. Agriculture, he stated, needs to step forward and assist in the better
understanding of these interactions. He remarked that many outside of the United States look to
this country as a sleeping giant—we have a tremendous amount of information and tools, but
need to use them correctly and pool our resources. He noted that the Department of Agriculture
does have a good relationship with the National Weather Service and stated that the Department
could benefit from more use of climate prediction data and modeling. Admiral Watkins then
reiterated his statement that Agriculture needs to be a key player in any future ocean activity
coordinating body.
Based on his experience as the head of an integrated and sustained atmospheric coordination
system, Dr. McPherson was asked how a similar initiative could be developed for the ocean. In
response, Dr. McPherson remarked on the need to develop this type of system for the ocean. He
also noted the need for some kind of coordinating mechanism to ensure that all interested players
are represented. He stated that a lead agency should be identified, given the difficulty of running
this type of program on a sustained basis. This type of program, he commented, takes an array
of disciplines and a lot of dedication on the part of all of the participants.
The Commission remarked that when NOAA was formed, a regulatory component was added to
the ocean science and services part of the organization, but not to the atmospheric science and
services part. McPherson commented that it is better to separate science from regulation, but
that regulation has to be based on sound science. He remarked that one has to be sure that the
regulatory tail of governance does not wag the science dog.
Dr. McPherson was asked what it would take to correct the existing ad hoc observing network
that has fallen into disarray. It was noted by the Commission that in his testimony, Dr.
McPherson made the case for an integrated global observing system for monitoring the state of
the coupled ocean-atmosphere-land system on a continuing basis. He was asked what kinds of
institutional arrangements it would take to develop this kind of system. Dr. McPherson
responded that, after serving on the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere
(NACOA), he has a good idea of what NACOA could do to pool the resources of all the related
agencies. He stated that he would like to see the applicable components of different agencies
like NOAA and USGS brought together to form an independent agency focused on climate. This
27
agency, he stated, would have three main components: observation, services, and research.
There would be no regulatory component.
The Commission asked Dr. McPherson to provide additional testimony on his call for a coupled
ocean-atmosphere-land system of monitoring. He was asked to provide specific details on why
this type of system is important and why this initiative warrants the development of an
independent agency. He responded that he would be delighted to provide this information.
Dr. McPherson was then asked to provide further comment on his desire to see the research kept
separate from regulation. Commissioner Ruckelshaus noted that, as head of the EPA, there were
occasions that good science needed to be accessed on a short time scale—particularly in
emergency situations. He remarked on the importance of having the ability to coordinate science
with decision making. In response, Dr. McPherson commented that he did not mean to suggest
that regulators not have access to science. His point was that he did not want to see regulatory
activity unduly influence scientific observations. Commissioner Ruckelshaus then reiterated the
idea that decision makers often need quick access to sound science, and that this may be a
legitimate reason for having science and regulatory components coexist in the same agency. Dr.
McPherson responded that statutory requirements that mandate science as a basis for decision
making suggest that scientific research would continue to be used to satisfy regulatory
imperatives. As an example, he cited the use of NOAA’s Air Research Laboratories by EPA to
satisfy these types of regulatory objectives.
Dr. McPherson was asked where regulatory functions should go if they are not to be included
with research within NOAA. He responded that he did not have strong feelings on the matter—
possibly the Department of Interior. The Commission asked, if these two components are to be
separated, how you would ensure that policy is based on the best science. Dr. McPherson
posited that unhelpful separations, such as oceans from atmosphere and weather from climate
should be avoided. However, he noted that fisheries management within NOAA has never fit
well with the physical sciences. He suggested that research and monitoring could be separated
from the regulation of fisheries. Commissioner Rosenberg asked Dr. McPherson to clarify his
position based on the fact that fisheries management is often expected to be based on the best
science. Dr. McPherson noted the different types of measurements needed for the physical and
chemical sciences and fisheries science. What is needed for the physical and chemical sciences,
he stated, are measurements of temperature, pressure, wind, currents, etc. Given that these
measurement types support needs beyond fisheries science, he suggested that it may not be
efficient or appropriate to have the same organization (fisheries management) be responsible for
both functions. The Commission remarked that the thought behind the decision to separate
science from policy making remains an issue.
Dr. Joyce remarked that we probably do not want to restore existing observation systems because
we have learned how to do things better. For example, where weather ships were once needed to
gather data, moorings and satellite-derived data now offer a more efficient alternative. Also,
recent NASA participation now enables remotely-sensed global salinity measurements to be
made. Although new and better ways of doing things are being discovered, he stated that the
problem remains of trying to get the will and organizational structure to make this happen. What
is being done now, he noted, is being done in an ad hoc fashion.
28
It was noted by the Commission that the findings described in the testimony of Dr. Joyce were
startling. The Commission made specific reference to Dr. Joyce’s concluding statement: “For
those of us living around the edge of the North Atlantic Ocean, and that includes Chicago where
we are meeting today, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are
opposite to what might actually occur.” The point was made that there is a great debate on
global warming and that people thus far have been led to believe that the consequences of
climate change will mean a rise in sea level and the loss of land. It was noted that, in his
testimony, Dr. Joyce suggested that increased freshwater runoff from polar regions could lead to
a change in the large scale oceanic circulation, reducing the magnitude and trajectory of the Gulf
Stream, thereby leading to global cooling in parts of Europe and North America, which may lead
to opposite results predicted thus far. The cooling of these regions may in turn lessen the fresh
water runoff, so this may be a self-regulating mechanism. The Commission expressed concern
that the public not be given too complex a message about global warming and asked what kind
of reception Dr. Joyce has had on his recent findings.
Dr. Joyce responded that the message he is trying to convey is that you can have areas of
regional cooling as a result of global warming. He stated that there has been evidence of a
temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius over the last thirty years in most of the Northern
Hemisphere. If the ocean conveyor belt collapses, warming in the North Atlantic would likely
reverse, but cooling would be limited to this area. He specified that what he was inferring was
not a new ice age, which are global and occur every 100,000 years. Rather, the scale and
magnitude of this cooling would be significantly smaller. He also stated that there would also be
a storm track change, with Canadian Arctic air coming down and sweeping across North
America. He noted that some climate change models do not account for abrupt climate change
and that there should be more “truth in advertising” in what is presented to the public. Admiral
Watkins added that he did not see any difference in Dr. Joyce’s testimony and what was
presented in the NRC report, Abrupt Climate Change.
Commissioner Rasmuson remarked that, as a resident of Alaska, he has witnessed over the last
forty years ice breaking away from the northern part of the Arctic Ocean. He stated that there is
evidence of global warming, but he remains unclear as to how this trend will affect global
populations. Dr. Joyce noted that there is research being done in the Arctic onboard the USCGS
Polar Star and USCGS Healy. He remarked on the current elevated interest in Arctic research
based on the observance of ice that is either vanishing or compacting. Admiral Watkins
remarked on the need to enhance ocean observation efforts in the Arctic, which was expressed in
the Commission’s mid term report.
Admiral Watkins concluded the discussion by mentioning an upcoming report on the need for a
global observation system to be presented by Ocean.US. He noted the potential significance of
the findings of this report in corroborating the direction advocated by the Commission.
29
Public Comment
Once the Executive Director explained the rules of the public comment process, the Chair
opened the floor for public comment.
Mr. Ned Dikmen of Great Lakes Boating Magazine discussed recreational boating in the Great
Lakes. He remarked on the size and growth of the retail boating industry and noted that onethird of the nation’s boating takes place in the Great Lakes. The large number of boats, he
stated, signaled a need for marina expansion. Large-scale marinas were built; however these
“jumbo marinas” have fallen short of expectations—that is, many of these marinas are currently
less than half-filled. He expressed a need for applied market research and stated that it is
imperative that marinas be scaled properly and only expanded as needed. He also commented
that recreational boating should not be second to commercial shipping in the amount of money
spent for dredging. He noted that more money should be allocated for harbor dredging to allow
more access for recreational boating.
Mr. John Rogner of the Chicago Wilderness coalition described a model of collaborative
conservation. He remarked on how the Chicago Regional Biodiversity Council chose to
horizontally integrate units of government in order to address biodiversity issues in urban areas.
He remarked that, for years, conservation organizations worked independently. Chicago
Wilderness was formed when thirty-four public and private institutions acted to form a coalition
in order to work more effectively at preventing biodiversity loss. He noted the coalition’s awardwinning biodiversity plan, which was developed with the goal of protecting land, influencing
policy, developing better science, and creating citizenry. Using this case as an example, he
recommended that the federal government align its resources behind regionally-driven
initiatives. He noted that federal support brings local groups together to see the big picture—all
the while acting to accomplish their own agency missions with the help of local and state
expertise. He remarked on the significance of this initiative as a model for urban resource
management.
Mr. Rahm Emanuel, a Democratic nominee for U.S. Congress, stated his support for the
establishment of a Great Lakes trust fund. A Great Lakes trust fund, he stated, would be
modeled after funds in the Florida Everglades and Chesapeake Bay. He noted that the Great
Lakes is one of the nation’s great natural resources and that demands on the lakes are increasing,
making preservation a challenge. Last year, the Great Lakes experienced the largest number of
beach closings ever. Although the use of the Great Lakes is growing, there is no federal
commitment of resources for a Great Lakes trust fund. He noted that the highlights of a Great
Lakes trust fund are included in a written statement submitted to the Commission.
Mr. Jeff Boem of the Shedd Aquarium remarked on the strong need for ocean conservation
coordination and offered Shedd Aquarium as an example of a model for conservation education.
Shedd Aquarium reaches two million visitors a year— engaging them in the importance of
ecosystems, the complexity of ocean problems, and the important role they can play. He noted
two programs at the aquarium: the ecologically-minded “Right Bite” program in partnership with
30
The Audubon Society; and Project Seahorse, which focuses on the relationship between
communities and the ocean on a global-scale.
Ms. Lee Botts of the Lake Michigan Federation voiced concern over a current navigation project
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). She stated that USACOE efforts aim to
revive the previously-failed concept of year-round navigation in the Great Lakes and represent
an unsustainable expansion of navigation. This activity, she stated, is not supported by any
evidence of economic benefit; would create contaminated dredge spoils; would damage the
coastline; and would introduce nonnative species through ballast water. She advocated
reforming the mission of the USACOE and how it functions. She also noted the need for an
independent analysis of USACOE activities. She recommended that the Commissioners read a
book entitled Corps by the Shore by Orrin Pilkey.
Mr. Mark Rogers of Cape Wind Associates commented on efforts to develop the first offshore
wind farm in the U.S. He noted that the proposed wind farm would generate half of the
electricity needs for Cape Cod and the islands. He noted that wind farms have the potential to
provide a safe and secure energy future from the development of clean resources. He remarked
that his company’s goal is aligned with the mission of the Ocean Act that encourages innovative
projects and technologies. He stated that offshore winds are inexhaustible, offer less of a threat
to marine life than global climate change, and would curb the nation’s crippling dependence on
oil and other nonrenewable resources. The Cape Cod wind project would also be a major
attraction for sustainable tourism. He noted that the project is receiving favorable reviews in
newspapers and magazines and that there is considerable support for the project from
environmental groups. He asked that the Commission make recommendations to enable
renewable technologies and demonstrate a commitment to ocean resources.
Mr. Fred Kenney of the U.S. Department of State updated the Commission on the development
of an international ballast water program being coordinated by the IMO. Mr. Kenney announced
plans for an upcoming diplomatic conference to negotiate key issues in the process of finalizing
an international convention. Under negotiation are the mechanisms to control ballast water
exchange. The main question, he stated, is that of establishing mandatory requirements. The
U.S. has submitted a position paper that addresses this issue, as well as a number of smaller
issues requiring resolution. He concluded by noting that, at the conclusion of the upcoming
conference, the State Department will provide the Commission an updated report on the process.
Ms. Megan Amundson of the Massachusetts Chapter of the Sierra Club expressed concern that
the Commission is overlooking issues involving military encroachment. She noted the recent
occurrence of a massive beaching of right whales on Cape Cod and indicated that a possible
cause of the deaths may be the use of low frequency sonar by the military off the New England
coast. She remarked that the work being done by the military is largely kept secret from the
public. She acknowledged that an attack on military behavior is unpopular now, but urged the
Commission to work with the administration to put ecosystem protection at the forefront of
national concern. She remarked that, if the Commission is concerned about ocean health, it must
consider military encroachment as a major issue.
The Commission meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
31
Appendix I
September 24-25, 2002 Ocean Commission Meeting Attendees
Affiliation
American Petroleum Institute
Maritime Administration
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
NOAA
Consulate General of Canada
American Zoo and Aquarium Assoc.
National Science Foundation
Citizen Action Illinois
U.S. EPA
U.S. Navy
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program
North Shore Consultants, Inc.
USCG
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program
U.S. EPA
Shedd Aquarium
Army Corps of Engineers
Immersion Studios
Illinois Dept of Natural Resources
League of Women Voters
U.S. Department of Defense
No Affiliation Given
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Indiana Dept of Env. Mgmt
Illinois Department of Agriculture
U. S. Geological Survey
Sierra Club
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
Cape Wind
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
USCG
Shedd Aquarium
University of Washington
Lake Michigan Federation
University of Washington
Illinois Natural History Survey
U.S. EPA
Illinois DNR
Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant
Northeastern University
Name
Linda V. Bauch
Doris J. Bautch
Fred P. Binkowski
Glenn Boledovich
Allen R. Brown
Sydney J. Butler
Larry Clark
Ashley Collins
David C. Cowgill
Cynthia Decker
Leslie E. Dorworth
Andrew Fedyn sky
Michael S. Gardiner
Robin Goettel
Gary Gulezian
Herb Hallberg
William Harder
Rodney Hoinkes
Daniel Injerd
Judy Johnston
Scott Kenney
Michael Keriohe
J. Val Klump
Kathy Luther
Dennis McKenna
Donna N. Myers
Bruce Nilles
Jack Orchard
Mark Rodgers
John D. Rogner
CAPT Bob Ross
Betsie Rypma
Daniel Schwartz
Stephanie Smith
Mark Stoermer
Kristin Tepas
Vicki Thomas
Thomas Trudeau
Richard Warner
Michelle Wildes
32